John McCain: Raising taxes isn't patriotic -- 'It's just plain dumb.'

There could be some bigger patriots then, under the administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The rival Republican team of John McCain and Sarah Palin have another word for it: "Painful.''

"Raising taxes in a tough economy isn't patriotic,'' McCain said at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, today. "It's not a badge of honor. It's just plain dumb.''

With the Democrats asking the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes, while promising tax cuts for the middle class and lower-income Americans, to pay for health care and other inititiatives, Biden (pictured at a rally this week in Media, Pa., in a photo by Peter Tobia/Philadelphia Inquirer/MCT) said in an appearance on ABC News' Good Morning America today that, for the wealthy, paying more taxes is the patriotic thing to do.

At the same time, the McCain campaign has floated a new campaign ad calling the Obama campaign's tax plans "painful.''

Under Obama's plan, thoseearning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less -- the vast majority -- would see a tax break. While the McCain campaign warns voters about Obama's tax increases, the independent Tax Policy Center reports that four out of five U.S. households would see tax cuts.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said on Good Morning America. Allowing that wealthier Americans would more, the senator from Delaware and running mate for Obama said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

McCain's campaign ad, on the other hand, warns that Obama's taxes would only worsen the economic crisis at hand. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby.

"And we would pay -- painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil,'' the narrator warns. "Can your family afford that?"

The Associated Press contributed.

Comments

Why should the CEO's that McCain represents, who make millions a year, play less taxes than the average worker in America?

They should pay taxes like everybody else, considering the opportunity America provides them.

I am in agreement with Obama's policy because the rich for the most part lead comfortable lives, and would be minimally affected by higher taxes. However many lower middle-class people may have large families to support and increased taxes for them could negatively impact their standard of living.

That's what really baffles me, about our Republican brethren. They live in the greatest country, the world has known and they beef about paying the necessary costs to maintain it and refine it !! They hire batteries of accountants and lawyers to fight paying said taxes and yet, they bash lawyers for fighting for the under-served, the disadvantaged or the citizens that have been hurt or crippled by the negligence on the part of persons or parties. Lawyers are the foundation of our form of government and if they disappear, than we better, really start to worry for our country. Taxes make America work and if you scheme, to avoid paying your fair share, than you are not being very American, or very fair to the rest of us, taxpayers !! I am fortunate enough to have gained a college degree, a BA, thanks to the G.I. Bill and I have never itemized my tax bill. Of course, I have never made more than $55,000 a year and that was the last three years, before I retired, due to cancer, for which the prognosis now looks good, thank God. ( Sorry about the personal stuff. )
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

WELL, being that Biden and Dems are so patriotic, why go to all the trouble to collect taxes.....seems to me we could just hold out a box and let all these rich Patriotic Democrats voluntarily place their money into it for the poor folk down below. Hey wait a minute, we do have a system where they can volunteer their money for the poor and WE STILL HAVE POOR.... What's up with that, didn't the Rich Dems say they felt they should pay more, are they waiting for people to come pull it out of their hands....gee that's not very patriotic is it ????

I'll support the side who understand Economics 101, if you tax the rich they pass down every bit of it down to you.

It is good of you to say so, " Shadow " and I appreciate your compliment. As you know, there are many " great Americans " out there, yourself included and I know that because of your consideration for a fellow American. We agree to disagree, which is one of the many reasons she is such a great country, America !! God bless her and all Americans !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

This is called stealing. If our government was run like a corporation they would be bankrupt and fired. Noone is entitled to anything except freedom and the persuit of happiness. It isn't up to me or anyone else to take care of you, that's your job. America is about being rewarded for success not punished. But, the government does take personnal checks, money orders, cash and credit cards if you want to give more.

More Jr. High Student Council campaigning from McSame - promising things that he will never be able to deliver- and he's been called on it.

Love yesterday when he flipped AGAIN on the AIG bailout- now he's talking about how he "understood" why it happened. Mr. Economy, John McSame? Nice!! Good when your running mate isn't on the same message....and your economic surrogates (Carly Fiorina and Phil Gramm)

Maybe form a committee to investigate what the heck is going on in your own campaign McSame? Help me Rick Davis!!!

Funny thing is that the rich pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class does (this percentage increased due to the Bush tax cuts). They also contribute the great majority of total tax dollars (the top 1/5 paid 2/3 of all income taxes in 2003). Why, in this environment, would we want to take more money from those who invest and create job to give it to a government that does very little of either?

" John C ", that Republican falsehood is so full of holes, the Swiss love it !! Where are the jobs !!? Where are the benefits from giving the rich ridiculous tax-breaks?? Please, no Republican nonsense about the Democrats prevented those benefits from happening !!! It was some more snake-oil the Bush-Cheney Regime foisted on the American taxpayer and here is the real kicker, during the war and occupation of Iraq !! Anybody, for four more years of these falsehoods, these pyramid schemes or these banking scandals??! I'm not and I know most of the country is ready for a change!! A change in Party, from the incompetent Republicans to the Democratic Party leading this country and a change in the direction this nation is heading !! Greed has run rampant for too long in this country, it is time to grapple with its limitations !! Republicans don't even see it as a vice, yet it is destroying our economy and our nation !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Would Biden please explain how giving all those horrible rich patriot's money to the group of people LEAST capable of wisely investing it and creating economic growth is going to help the economy? This oughtta be rich, coming from Mr. Robinette and his lobbyist son, Hunter.

Yesterday, Biden was telling us that current tax policy and Republican resistance to new bankruptcy rules were to blame for our crisis on Wall Street. That was laughably false. Today, he's telling us that it is "patriotic" to pay taxes? He's got taxes on the brain.
*
Let's get this straight. It is a taxpayer's affirmative duty to pay his or her tax liability - as defined and calculated under the tax code - and not a penny more. The government doesn't expect a penny more, and you don’t get anything, not even as much as a pat on the head or a beggin' strip, for doing so. No one in the history of this country has ever been singled out as exemplary or "patriotic" for meeting or exceeding their tax-paying duty. In fact, anyone who would intentionally overpay their taxes needs to have his or her head examined. It is, therefore, ludicrous to speak of taxpaying as "patriotic."
*
But, of course, we know why Biden wants to wrap tax-paying in the flag. He wants to do so because it would make anyone look "unpatriotic" for arguing against lower spending and higher taxes. That, in turn, plays into the Obambi-Biden plan for spending even more money on social welfare programs. Now all they have to do is find someone gullible enough to buy into that rhetoric.

Such an enigma, that Republican party. They slam regulation till the greedy ones overreach, then they claim to be all for it.
*
They slam government until the private sector and the same greedy ones cause a meltdown, then they rush for government handouts.
*
They cry about how overburdened corporations are, but the majority of U.S. companies (68%) pay no taxes.http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/
*
They keep making the false claims that lowering taxes pays for itself in increased revenue, when the figures clearly say otherwise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
*
When that 6 year "expansion" crumbles from Wall St. greed and lack of control, they blame Clinton. The party that has worked tirelessly to eviscerate all government regulation and oversight (Republican) is suddenly the consumers' best friend.
*
The party that cried that autoworker benefits cost us $1000 or more on the price of each vehicle, and that we will have to outsource, is suddenly the workers best friend. My God, McCain was even railing against outrageous salaries for CEO's that run their companies into the ground, when his own economic advisor fits the bill to a tee:
*
ABC News' Lisa Chinn and Jennifer Parker report: Republican ticket mates John McCain and Sarah Palin Monday blasted corporate executives who leave their company with a "golden parachute" and pledged to "stop multimillion dollar payouts" to CEOs, seeming to forget their own top economic adviser Carly Fiorina walked away with $45 million, including a $21.4 million severance package when she was dismissed by Hewlett Packard in 2005.
*
Fiorina was dismissed as the CEO of Hewlett Packard in 2005 after a merger with Compaq floundered, stock prices plunged 50 percent, and 20,000 people were layed off. Fiorina walked away with a $21.4 million severance package

Maybe Enigma isn't the best way to describe today's Republican Party. Maybe just plain dishonest is more accurate.

Jeff,
$320,000 wouldn't even pay for one of McCain's 9 homes. Weren't you on here saying how the subprime mess was solely the fault of those stupid people who deserve to take their lumps? Who's bailing out the financial markets, Jeff? Where's Obama? How's are things going with that political solution in Iraq? What's going on with the coalition of the leaving? Is the war over? Do you think Ms. Fiorina can spare some of her $45 million (for running HP into the ground) to pay for Bush's war?

Don I'm not sure where to begin since nothing of what you wrote had anything to do with my post. You state that the rich recieved "ridiculous tax-breaks". Why then are they paying a greater percentage of the total income tax. The tax cuts to the middle and lower income brackets must have been ludicrous. As far as "where are the jobs" you would need to compare that to what the job level would have been if X were done. I am not going to argue whether the Bush administration policies maximized job creation. I will say that the private sector has a MUCH better record of creating growth and distributing it more fairly than command economies. Think US economy vs Soviet economy. Final you write as if only Republicans are "greedy" and to blame for our current economic problems. I think that if you look there is plenty of blame to go around. Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Dodd should be taking a long look in the mirror today. I name them only as examples as there are many on both side of the aisle that allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to to take on loans without such basics as proof of income or employment.

The fair share of taxes from the very wealthy would pay to fix American infrastructure and reduce the run-away deficit. That makes sense to me. Right now the very wealthy are getting away with paying their fair share from the low tax rates on investments. The very wealthy should be going nuts about Bush's deregulations that have messed up a portfolio or two--except for the portfolios of the CEOs of the banks that are getting millions of separation package dollars for doing such bad jobs. All the "smart" bankers should be jumping in now--crying woe is me--in order to be pumped up by the public tax dollars. All in all, what will the Bush deficit be from all the "emergency" war credit card bills, the private Wall Street titan bail outs, and just the crappy grasp of the American economy in general? Funny how someone like The Donald wants to put another Pug in the WH.

democrats, just be honest about your socialist view of taxes - ONE CAN NEVER PAY ENOUGH.

NO ONE, certainly not democrats, can fairly determine where a line of delineation could fairly be drawn that would define a clear distinction between upper middle class, kind of rich, sort of rich, basicly rich, really rich, truly ricy, richer than rich. How can anyone define this sort of thing.

We have a clearly progressive tax system in place already in this country. Wealthier Americans are already paying a disproportionately higher share of the individual income tax burden that is assessed and collected every fiscal year. How can any honest person deny that when you analyze what percentage of taxes are extracted at ANY two or more income percentile levels that you choose to compare.

There are just some things that democrats never favor. Certainly, higher taxes are a core belief of the modern democratic party. Just Own It.

Unfortunately for the 95% who would receive a tax break it would be a tax rebate check. 40% of the 95% do not even pay taxes they get earned income credits along with all the taxes taken out in payroll taxes back each year.
Should all of the tax cuts that Bush enacted and Congress does not want to extend be cancelled as Obama wants to do each and every one of us in the 95% will see less in our pay check each week. Also because Obama wants to beef up the Social Security fund we would see more money coming out of our pay checks each week. Why is Social Security in trouble? Well it was in the same trouble back when Regan upped the amount taken out of our pay checks back in the 80's. We should have had a surplus by now but unfortunately we have a Social Security fund stuffed full of IOU's from the government once again. We can thank Clinton for that and congress. Where do you think they were finding all that extra tax money toward the end of Clintons administration that was showing a budget surplus? Creative accounting and giving you tax revenue figures that projected the revenue 10 years into the future. But that was if the economy kept growing and we all know 9/ll happened to blast that out of the water.

Once again the tax break you will get from Obama is a rebate check think of how far the last one took you to financial security.

Cut off the money a business needs to expand and if you draw a paycheck from a company you are cutting your own throat.

It is as simple as that.

Workers with no jobs cannot pay taxes to support all of the proposals that Obama is promising they can only join the welfare rolls.

* * * * *
That's very nice, Vivian, except it wasn't Bush's deregulation that caused this mess. The deregulation that is primarily responsible for this occurred in 1999. That's when Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall act - which previously prohibited the combination of commercial and investment banking. That repeal is what permitted the creation of mortgage backed securities and facilitated incredibly stupid sub-prime lending practices.
*
Of course, all of this wouldn't have been quite so possible were it not also for the Federal Reserve Bank's hand in it. The FRB's practice of keeping its interest rates so low for so many years discouraged savings and encouraged "creative" (read reckless and greedy) lending practices to the un-creditworthy. That helped made the sub-prime lending market possible.
*
The FRB had regulatory oversight of the banks to which it lent money. It could have substantially curbed the practice of sub-prime lending through its regulatory powers; but it didn't. According to Alan Greenspan, he had no idea the sub-prime market was getting out of hand. It wasn't even on his radar.
*
The problem here is that the President doesn't have power to control the Federal Reserve Bank, and Congress hasn't acted to give the President or itself greater oversight over the FRB. In addition, we needed Securities, Banking and financing laws to curb the practices involved here. Congress had several critical opportunities since deregulation in 1999 to do something that could have averted the problems we now have. But it fiddled while Rome burned.

It's a fallacy to say jobs haven't been created under the Bush regime. They have. Thousands of them. Just, not in the United States. The jobs have all been moved overseas -- where corporations can get away with paying workers only $5 A DAY, and then get massive tax breaks over here for helping the world economy.

I don’t know what Country Biden thinks he is in, but here in America patriotism is EVERYONE doing an honest days work for honest pay.
I am not considered wealthy and I personally believe that you can’t tax a nation into prosperity. I also don’t believe you should punish someone for being successful.
In this world there are good people and bad people. There are hard workers and lazy people. Not all people on the system are bad or worthless. Not all CEOs are greedy and selfish.
Extended living on the system when you are physically capable of working is what is unpatriotic. I am all for a hand up when someone needs it. I am not for a hand out for those that are all take and no give.
America is a land of opportunity. You either seize the opportunity or waste it. I choose to seize opportunity and not let politicians provide for me. It isn’t always easy, it isn’t always fun, but it’s always my choice.

OK, let’s look at this in numbers everyone can understand. Our current tax rate is approximately as follows:
Someone making $25,000 per year is taxed at a rate of about 25% or $6,250 per year.
Someone making $100,000 is taxed at a rate of about 37% or $37,000 per year.They pay more in taxes then some people earn.
Someone making $200,000 is taxed at a rate of about 41% or $82,000 per year. They pay more in taxes then most people earn. I think that is a fair share, don't you? And if Joe Biden had his way, someone making $250,000 would be taxed at a rate of 50% or $125,000 per year, which would make them work harder but make less than someone making $200k per year. How is that fair? Where is the incentive to work harder? Where is the incentive to start a business and provide jobs for others if you are penalized for being successful? How is that patriotic? Fair would be that everyone was paid for the value they bring and taxed at the same rate. 25% sounds good to me! How about we just tax movie stars and athletes since they make way too much money for little or no real work and they are the ones complaining the loudest!

John W.--Bush has been prez for eight years. The Pugs ran The Hill for 6 of those years. The Pugs are all about--and all supportive of--gov't deregulation. The pugs want to privatize all that the gov't should be running for The People, not for The Few--like the private Pugs want. John--what will be Bush's bottom line, bookkeeping total, of his disastrous 8 years? Negative 500 billion PLUS the 3 trillion for the war, long term VA expenses, all the loose ends in Iraq, PLUS the public Wall Street bail out for the private investors. Hey guys--you should never gamble with any money you can't afford to lose. If I write bad checks, I will go to jail. Put the cheats and Wall Street criminals in jail. Don,t bail them out with my childrens' future.

Obama says his plan will give a taxcut to 95% of all taxpayers, but 40% of you already don't pay ANY taxes and many among that get more money back than was paid in. Where do you think that money comes from?

One of the problems with all the economic talk about 'the rich' is that it is totally impersonal and it asks the folks who do not believe themselves to be in the group Obama intends to take wealth from to focus only on their own situation.

This lack of a personal view into the costs of taxes and the impact they have on those of us who really pay the bill is unfair, it is manipulative, and it stops, today.

I am curious for those of you who support Obama and his 'tax the rich' approach, just how much more are my family and I supposed to pay?

For the past 7 years my earnings have put me in the top 5% of wage earners in the US (AGI between ~$145K - ~$363K, gross earnings of $180 - $400K).

According to IRS statistics, families like mine earn 14.6% of the money earned in the US, yet we pay 20.3% of the taxes in the US.

For 4 of the last 7 years, my gross earnings (including performance of my business since we were organized as an LLC) have been in the range that Obama and Biden are now suggesting my PAY-triotic duty is to pay more. They apparently do not think I am paying enough.

There are about 6.6 million families in the US in the same boat as I am in.

40% of ALL wage earners in the US (about 52 million families) do not pay any effective income taxes (they get a full refund), and many of those actually get more money paid back with the Single Head of Household and other programs. Just to be clear, they get more back than they pay in.

The next 10% (from the bottom 40-50% of wage earners), about 13 million families, pay 3% of the total tax bill.

The bottom 50% of ALL wage earners (66 million families) share in 13% of the earnings, and yet pay 3% of the total bill.

Families like mine (6.6 million of us) make 15% of the earnings and pay almost 21% of the total bill.

If you are making half what I do (AGI of about $62K), you share in 21% of the total earnings, and pay 15.7% of the tax bill, but you split it with 33 million other families.

If you make less than $31K per year, you pay no more than 3% of the tax bill but share in 13% of total earnings in the US, and are likely to have no tax burden and may even get more money back than you paid in.

In order to give $1000 to 95% of all taxpayers as Obama is promising, someone has to come up with about $125 Billion dollars, if the 6.6 million families like mine are to pay for that, not only do we NOT get the $1000 cut, each family like mine will have to pay about $19K more in taxes, every year. If you include the top 1%, that only adds 1.3 million families, it still makes the burden $15.8K more.

That would increase my tax burden by as much as 40%.

Together we share in 36% of the earnings but foot almost 60% of the bill.

For all that don't mind more taxes. . . I would love to see no withholding of any taxes. Let everyone pay their own taxes and the 7.62% additional that their employers match for the SS and Med. Writing that check every month would open their eyes! Most people I talk to are only concerned on how much they get back from withholdings. Ask them how much they pay? Most don't even know! I would say that 90% aren't even a wear of the "matching" tax for SS. and Med.. Many feel that the european socialist forms of government is what we need (health care, etc.) take some time and look at what has happened to them in the last 25 years. Still paying the high taxes with many benefits lost in many areas.
When I hear someone questioning my patriotic integrity, shame on them. Sounds like "Political Correctness" at a new level.

Speaking of the partial repeal of Glass-Steagall act of 1935, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999 , was brought to the nation by, tell them, " John W " !! I am surprised you haven't shared that information with us, given your penchant for over-informing. It is a shame you can't present the whole picture, instead of that portion, that supports your fraudulent presentation!! The whole picture being, it was, none other than Speaker Hastert and The Republican Deregulating Company. You know, the ones that have since laid waste to our financial sector !! The sponsors were all Republicans, the champions of de-regulation and the authors of our present financial market crisis, or scandal, take your pick !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Ding-dong FITZ - you just don't get what makes this country great - it isn't the bureacrat in the Commerce Department - it is the business owner. Greatness doesn't come from the bueraucrat in the dept of Labor - it is the worker that has been employed by the uisness owner. Greatness doesn't come from the dept of Education, but from the teacher that taught the worker and business owner.

There are few useful gov'tal functions - military, infrastructure and a few others. The greatness comes from the citizens that have invented cures for diseases, built buildings, cure the sick, raise the capital to expand business which creates jobs. The greatness of this country does not stem from the gov't bureacracy.

The top one percent pay 40% of the federal income taxes. How much higher do you believe is fair?

As far as patriotism - I thought it was Obama's stance that one's patriotism shouldn't be questioned in this election? Since the bottom 25% pay no income taxes - does that make them unpatriotic according Obama bin Biden?

Vivian - if only all those increased taxes did was improve infrastructure and reduce the deficit - unfortuately it will go towards more failed gov't programs.

Will someone explain how the 54% payroll/income tax rate create an incentive to create jobs?

* * * * *
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | September 18, 2008 11:09 PM
*
Don,
*
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in the House of Representatives by substantial bi-partisan vote and by a largely Republican vote in the Senate. After that, President Bill Clinton (a Democrat) signed it into law. Both parties had a very important hand in it and, thus, both are to blame.
*
BTW - For the record, I have posted approximately 4 posts in the Swamp discussing the effect of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, its repeal of the Glass-Steagall act of 1935, and those who were responsible for its passage. Therefore, if there is anything fraudulent being written here, it is your claim that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley was entirely a Republican matter and your claim that I have either misrepresented anything about it.

As a professional working mother, whose spouse is also a professional, I am really tired of being portrayed by the liberals and the media as somehow being "less worthy" of an American and being told that we should be penalized for our hard work and being taxed at a higher percentage simply because our family has a good income. Both my husband and I are responsible citizens, paid for our own college and graduate degrees, live well within our means, live in a modest home, and take care of our OWN children and family. I don't want the income I've work hard for to go to people who are irresponsible with their money (including people who bought houses they couldn't afford, and now want responsible homeowners like me to pay for their careless mistakes), or for schooling or health care for illegal immigrants.

Joe Biden's comment on patriotism is offensive and penalizes hard work and productivity. Let's call the Obama/Biden plan what it really is: SOCIALISM. I have a news flash for them: When you take away from people who work hard and are productive, you take away the incentive to produce. Why work then? The income my family earns should go to benefit MY OWN family and children, and it's not my responsibility to take care of other people's families or take the hit for people who have chosen to live irresponsibility, or come into this country illegally.

Anyone who believes that 95% of AMericans will see tax cuts and only 5% of Americans will see increases is crazy.

Obama's numbers just simply DO NOT ad up. I am an independent and have though long and hard about who to vote for. I watch every single interview with all the cadidates on each side and have decided that Obama is just plain dishonest. He flips and he flops depending on which was the wind blows. First is was those under 150 would not pay more than under 250. His website is vague in many areas.

It is just nuts to believe that 5% of the rich will be the only ones paying for his extravagant health plan. Oh, and by the way, you do not want a Governement run health insurance, trust me. You will be basically standing in line to receive care under Obama if you have to buy his plan. Do you really think a doc will take you in over say, Ted Kennedy?

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)